* Andrew Miller <ak.mil...@auckland.ac.nz> [2012-05-29 10:52] writes:
> On 29/05/12 20:17, Michael Clerx wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'm glad to see uncertainty being taken into acount in cell models.
> > Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add the scenario where no assumptions
> > are made about the uncertainty and a parameter value is simply given by
> > its upper and lower bounds.
> I agree that there needs to be some way to handle that scenario. 
> However, it might be that in most cases where people do that, a uniform 
> distribution with upper and lower bounds will suffice - it seems to me 
> that saying a random variable is distributed uniformly between an upper 
> and lower bound is an explicit statement that the modeller knows that 
> the value falls in certain bounds, but has no reason to believe it is 
> any more likely to fall in one place within those bounds than anywhere else.

A uniform distribution is a huge assumption about a given range; I believe 
it would be not at all justified to make such an assumption by default.  
If the user knows that the value is distributed in a uniform linear 
fashion, they should be able to say that; likewise a uniform log or a 
normal or an Epanechnikov kernel.  But telling them they have to pick, or, 
worse, assuming you know when they didn't tell you is dangerous.

cellml-discussion mailing list

Reply via email to